1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100020/2018

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY THE

POLICE INSPECTOR,

KUMATA POLICE STATION,

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,

THROUGH THE ADDL.

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,

HIGH CURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH.

...APPELLANT.

(BY SHRI V.M.BANAKAR, ADD. SPP.)

AND:

JAYARAM NAIK S/O. GANAPATI NAIK

AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

R/O: KAGAL HUBBANAGERI,

KUMATA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

…RESPONDENT.

(BY SHRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE.)

2

THIS

CRIMINAL

APPEAL

IS

FILED

UNDER

SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL

DATED 21.07.2017, PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL

JUDGE

AND

JMFC,

KUMATA,

IN

CRIMINAL

CASE

NO.1128/2014

AND

TO

CONVICT

THE

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

FOR

THE

OFFENCES

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 326, 448, 504, 506 OF

IPC, ETC.,.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING

THIS

DAY,

SRI

M.I.ARUN

J,

DELIVERED

THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.7.2017,

in Criminal Case No.1128/2014, passed by the

Addl.

Civil

Judge

and

JMFC,

Kumta,

the

complainant State has preferred this appeal.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties

are referred to as per their status before the trial

Court.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that, the

accused illegally entered into the house of the

complainant’s father bearing property No.75A,

situated

at

Kagal,

Hubbanageri,

at

about

1.00 p.m. on 4.6.2014 and as there was a dispute

3

between

them, and also old hatredness,

the

accused abused the complainant’s father in a filthy

language and hit him on his right arm with a

wooden log resulting in fracture of a bone and he

also gave life threat to the complainant’s father.

Based on the said allegations, after investigation,

a charge sheet has been filed against the accused

alleging commission of offences under sections

326, 448, 504, 506 of IPC.

4.

The

prosecution

to

prove

its

case

examined six witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to

P8(a). M.O.1 also has been marked. The accused

has not let in any evidence nor got marked any

documents. After recording the evidence, 313

statement has been recorded. Based on the

evidence let in, the trial Court came to the

conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt

and accordingly acquitted the accused. Aggrieved

by the judgment of the trial Court, the State has

preferred this appeal.

4

5.

It is contended that the trial Court

acquitted the accused on the ground that there are

material contradictions in the deposition of PW1 –

complainant and PW3 – injured witness. It is

contended that the said contradictions are minor

in nature and cannot be considered such a great

contradiction

that

the

accused

needs

to

be

acquitted on the said ground. It is further

contended

that,

all

the

eyewitnesses

have

supported the case of the prosecution. It is also

contended that the evidence of PW3 – injured

witness has special status in law and reliance is

placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of Baleshwar Mahto and Another Vs.

State of Bihar and Another Reported in (2017) 3

SCC 15226 and also in the case of Suresh

Sitaram

Surve

Vs.

State

of

Maharashtra

reported in AIR 2003 SC 344. On the said

ground, the prosecution has sought for setting

aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and

to convict the accused for the offences charged

5

6.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

the

accused has justified the judgment passed by the

trial Court and has prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

7.

PW1

is

the

son

of

PW3

–

injured

witness. The allegation against the accused is